![\"Map](\"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/preconfederation2e\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/319\/2020\/09\/Map-of-New-France-about-1750-using-modern-political-boundaries.png\")
Figure 4.17 A map of New France, c. 1750. [Long Description]<\/a>[\/caption]By means of [pb_glossary id=\"931\"]gift diplomacy[\/pb_glossary] the French hoped to guarantee Indigenous support in the region and use it to keep the British out of the Ohio. From the Ottawa Valley south to Louisiana, New France had a small population. It relied heavily on friendly contacts with many and populous local Indigenous communities. The French settlers lacked the appetite for land that characterized English settlement. Also, they relied exclusively on Indigenous peoples to supply them with fur at trading posts. Low numbers of colonists, a limited military force of their own, and commercial dependence obliged the French to build a complex series of commercial, personal, and diplomatic connections. These enduring alliances between the French and the Indigenous communities were nurtured over decades and would have significant implications during the British-American invasion of the Ohio Valley.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_938\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"400\"]![\"A](\"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/preconfederation2e\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/319\/2020\/09\/Fort-de-Chartres-turret.jpg\")
Figure 4.18 Fort de Chartres in what is now southwestern Illinois. The fort was originally built in 1720 and then rebuilt in stone in the 1750s. It fell into ruins and was restored as a heritage site in the 20th century. This turret gives a sense of the investment made by Canadien and Louisianan authorities.[\/caption]\r\nThe South and West in New France<\/h1>\r\nFor historians of Canada, Louisiana is an opportunity to test certain assumptions. Individuals like d'Iberville connect the histories of the two regions, so they were not entirely isolates. News of practices in one could reach the other, while at the same time, distinctive and seemingly contradictory trends could be found. The seigneurial system never took root in Louisiana (nor was it applied to \u00cele Royale or with any rigour to Acadia); instead, individual land title was made available. Social relations were different as well. Colbert introduced the [pb_glossary id=\"932\"]Code Noir[\/pb_glossary] in 1685 to regulate slavery and establish racialized boundaries in the French sugar colonies; its tenets were subsequently transferred to Louisiana to support slavery in the cotton plantation economy after about 1717. Slavery was, to be sure, found in Canada although it was more likely to involve Indigenous slaves than Africans and more likely to be domestic in character than forced agricultural labour. But what is perhaps more noteworthy is that while interracial marriage and miscegnation occurred everywhere else in New France, in Louisiana's plantation districts it was officially prohibited. Spread thinly everywhere but the St. Lawrence, Acadia, and New Orleans, the French coureur de bois<\/em> readily married into local Indigenous communities. This was, of course, a diplomatic strategy as well as a biological\/sentimental one: working in such small numbers, the French outside of the main population centres had to make an effort to be on good terms with their hosts. To turn this comparison on its head, why was slavery not the norm in Canada? The Canadien economy was simply not one that could benefit from or sustain an army of forced labour.\r\n\r\nIn some respects there were peculiar similarities between the colonies. Where Canada and its hinterland had a trade in beaver pelts and moose hides, Louisiana's chief export for many years was deer skins. The Choctaw nation was the main supplier, and they were as closely aligned with Louisiana as the Wendat had been with Canada. Another parallel was the rivalry between the Choctaw and the Chickasaw, the latter being allies and trading partners of the English in South Carolina. Both Indigenous groups found themselves trading their captive enemies to their respective European allies as slaves.[footnote]Allan Greer, The People of New France<\/em> (Toronto: U of T Press, 2000), 105\u2013108.[\/footnote] As the French discovered, to their chagrin, accepting a slave-gift from one allied nation meant that the slave's nation of origin was ruled out as another ally. In this way, Indigenous slave exchanges purposefully set limits on whom the French could engage with diplomatically.[footnote]Brett Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France<\/em> (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012), 222.[\/footnote] This was particularly the case in the Pays d'en Haut<\/em>.\r\n\r\nDistances between the colonies within New France were so great that each region enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy. Although New France as a whole was governed out of Quebec City and, later, Montreal, Louisiana was administered principally from Mobile, then Biloxi, and finally from New Orleans. Upper Louisiana extended into the Illinois territory and was a zone in which New Orleans' authority competed with\u00a0Montreal's. Throughout much of Louisiana and the Pays d'en Haut<\/em>, administrative control was more theoretical than practical; French settlers and farmers soon found themselves integrated less into a European system and more into an Indigenous world.\r\n\r\nKey Takeaways<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\n \t- At its maximum size, New France was much more than Canada and Acadia.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Louisiana and the\u00a0Pays d'en Haut<\/em> were principally areas of French influence, rather than\u00a0settlement colonies.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Each of the regions of New France had distinctive economic and social characteristics and a degree of mutual autonomy.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
Long descriptions<\/h2>\r\n
Figure 4.17 long description<\/strong>: In 1750, France held modern-day Labrador, much of Quebec, southern Ontario, southern Manitoba, and a part of Saskatchewan. French territory also stretched south through the middle of the eastern United States all the way down to Louisiana and Mississippi at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico. Britain held the eastern coast of the United States from Maine to eastern Georgia and had recently acquired Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and parts of Northern Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba, along most of the shore of Hudson Bay. Spain held Florida, parts of the central United States from western Texas to Arizona and parts of Colorado and Utah, and Mexico. [Return to Figure 4.17]<\/a><\/p>","rendered":"![\"An](\"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/preconfederation2e\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/319\/2020\/09\/Partie-occidentale-du-Canada-1024x762.png\")
Figure 4.15 Vincenzo Coronelli’s 1688 map of the Pays d’en Haut.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe Wendat Confederacy collapsed in 1649 following tragic defeats by both smallpox and the Haudenosaunee. The loss of their favoured middlemen in the fur trade, however, enabled French voyageurs to push beyond the boundaries of Wendake (Huronia) and into the upper Great Lakes. In 1659, Pierre-Esprit Radisson and M\u00e9dard Chouart des Groseilliers, who would go on to lead the British charge into Hudson Bay, were the first French traders to reach the western shore of Lake Superior. The 1670s and 1680s saw missionary and exploratory activity expand in the region \u2014 known as the\u00a0Pays d’en Haut. <\/em>Still searching for a route to the Pacific,\u00a0voyageurs were initially hopeful about the Mississippi system. They soon realized that they were to be disappointed. Nevertheless, in 1699 French territorial claims in North America expanded dramatically when Louisiana was founded in the basin of the Mississippi. Until 1713, the\u00a0French laid claim to\u00a0a trading network that extended from Plaisance through Acadia and Canada, as far north as Hudson Bay, all around\u00a0the Great Lakes\u00a0and down to the Gulf of Mexico. This network was maintained through a vast system of fortifications.<\/p>\n![\"Drawing](\"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/preconfederation2e\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/319\/2020\/09\/Arkansas-Post-1689.jpg\")
Figure 4.16 The French established posts along the Mississippi like this one, Arkansas Post (c. 1689).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nLouisiana and the Ohio<\/h1>\n
Louisiana was the southernmost administrative district of New France and was under French control from 1682 to 1763 and 1800 to 1803. The first permanent settlement, Fort Maurepas, was founded in 1699 near the mouth of the Mississippi by Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, a French military officer from Canada. An inland trading post followed in 1714 in the territories of the Natchitoches, which served as an interface between French, Indigenous, and Spanish\/Mexican commercial interests in Texas. Soon cotton plantations began to appear. Louisiana originally covered a far-reaching territory that included most of the drainage basin of the Mississippi River and stretched from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and from the Appalachian Mountains to the Rocky Mountains. The relative success of the New France project rested in the ability of the French to hem in their competition and, in this respect, Lousiana and the Ohio were as integral to the success of Canada, as Canada was to that of the Pays d’en Haut<\/em> and the Mississippi. By means of careful diplomacy among the Indigenous nations of the Ohio Valley and the lands on either side of the Mississippi, the French were able to contain the British settlements to the east of the Appalachian Mountains until the mid-18th century. As well, they were able to exploit Indigenous dissatisfaction with British colonists even within the English colonies. This was the case in South Carolina in the early 1700s when Indigenous frustration with English trade partners and colonists made Louisiana an attractive alternative source of goods. In this way the French were able to work through third parties to hamper their English foes. The French pursued a virtually identical strategy in the south where they competed effectively against the Spanish. French rifles and other goods spread out across east Texas and as far west as New Mexico, undermining what loyalty and\/or deference the Spanish were able to command among their own Indigenous allies.<\/p>\nThe bridges between Louisiana and Canada were the Ohio and Illinois Valleys. Inaccessible to the French until the 1700s, the territory had changed hands between Indigenous groups during the period called the “Beaver Wars.” For reasons that go well beyond an interest in gaining dominance in the beaver-pelt trade, the Five Nations League expanded westward, raiding for personnel and subduing potentially dangerous neighbours. In the process, they drove off much of the indigenous population of the Ohio Valley, unintentionally making it more attractive to two groups: Indigenous peoples being squeezed out of the region east of Appalachia (across which British-American settlement was spilling) and Euro-North Americans who saw opportunities and dangers in a vacuum. French efforts were the most substantial once peace had been won with the Haudenosaunee.<\/p>\nFigure 4.17 A map of New France, c. 1750. [Long Description]<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\nBy means of gift diplomacy<\/a> the French hoped to guarantee Indigenous support in the region and use it to keep the British out of the Ohio. From the Ottawa Valley south to Louisiana, New France had a small population. It relied heavily on friendly contacts with many and populous local Indigenous communities. The French settlers lacked the appetite for land that characterized English settlement. Also, they relied exclusively on Indigenous peoples to supply them with fur at trading posts. Low numbers of colonists, a limited military force of their own, and commercial dependence obliged the French to build a complex series of commercial, personal, and diplomatic connections. These enduring alliances between the French and the Indigenous communities were nurtured over decades and would have significant implications during the British-American invasion of the Ohio Valley.<\/p>\nFigure 4.18 Fort de Chartres in what is now southwestern Illinois. The fort was originally built in 1720 and then rebuilt in stone in the 1750s. It fell into ruins and was restored as a heritage site in the 20th century. This turret gives a sense of the investment made by Canadien and Louisianan authorities.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe South and West in New France<\/h1>\n
For historians of Canada, Louisiana is an opportunity to test certain assumptions. Individuals like d’Iberville connect the histories of the two regions, so they were not entirely isolates. News of practices in one could reach the other, while at the same time, distinctive and seemingly contradictory trends could be found. The seigneurial system never took root in Louisiana (nor was it applied to \u00cele Royale or with any rigour to Acadia); instead, individual land title was made available. Social relations were different as well. Colbert introduced the Code Noir<\/a> in 1685 to regulate slavery and establish racialized boundaries in the French sugar colonies; its tenets were subsequently transferred to Louisiana to support slavery in the cotton plantation economy after about 1717. Slavery was, to be sure, found in Canada although it was more likely to involve Indigenous slaves than Africans and more likely to be domestic in character than forced agricultural labour. But what is perhaps more noteworthy is that while interracial marriage and miscegnation occurred everywhere else in New France, in Louisiana’s plantation districts it was officially prohibited. Spread thinly everywhere but the St. Lawrence, Acadia, and New Orleans, the French coureur de bois<\/em> readily married into local Indigenous communities. This was, of course, a diplomatic strategy as well as a biological\/sentimental one: working in such small numbers, the French outside of the main population centres had to make an effort to be on good terms with their hosts. To turn this comparison on its head, why was slavery not the norm in Canada? The Canadien economy was simply not one that could benefit from or sustain an army of forced labour.<\/p>\nIn some respects there were peculiar similarities between the colonies. Where Canada and its hinterland had a trade in beaver pelts and moose hides, Louisiana’s chief export for many years was deer skins. The Choctaw nation was the main supplier, and they were as closely aligned with Louisiana as the Wendat had been with Canada. Another parallel was the rivalry between the Choctaw and the Chickasaw, the latter being allies and trading partners of the English in South Carolina. Both Indigenous groups found themselves trading their captive enemies to their respective European allies as slaves.[1]<\/sup><\/a> As the French discovered, to their chagrin, accepting a slave-gift from one allied nation meant that the slave’s nation of origin was ruled out as another ally. In this way, Indigenous slave exchanges purposefully set limits on whom the French could engage with diplomatically.[2]<\/sup><\/a> This was particularly the case in the Pays d’en Haut<\/em>.<\/p>\nDistances between the colonies within New France were so great that each region enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy. Although New France as a whole was governed out of Quebec City and, later, Montreal, Louisiana was administered principally from Mobile, then Biloxi, and finally from New Orleans. Upper Louisiana extended into the Illinois territory and was a zone in which New Orleans’ authority competed with\u00a0Montreal’s. Throughout much of Louisiana and the Pays d’en Haut<\/em>, administrative control was more theoretical than practical; French settlers and farmers soon found themselves integrated less into a European system and more into an Indigenous world.<\/p>\n\n\nKey Takeaways<\/p>\n<\/header>\n
\n\n- At its maximum size, New France was much more than Canada and Acadia.<\/li>\n
- Louisiana and the\u00a0Pays d’en Haut<\/em> were principally areas of French influence, rather than\u00a0settlement colonies.<\/li>\n
- Each of the regions of New France had distinctive economic and social characteristics and a degree of mutual autonomy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Long descriptions<\/h2>\n
Figure 4.17 long description<\/strong>: In 1750, France held modern-day Labrador, much of Quebec, southern Ontario, southern Manitoba, and a part of Saskatchewan. French territory also stretched south through the middle of the eastern United States all the way down to Louisiana and Mississippi at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico. Britain held the eastern coast of the United States from Maine to eastern Georgia and had recently acquired Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and parts of Northern Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba, along most of the shore of Hudson Bay. Spain held Florida, parts of the central United States from western Texas to Arizona and parts of Colorado and Utah, and Mexico. [Return to Figure 4.17]<\/a><\/p>\nMedia Attributions<\/h2>- Partie occidentale du Canada<\/a> © 1688 by Vincenzo Coronelli is licensed under a Public Domain<\/a> license<\/li>
- Arkansas Post; 1689<\/a> © 1904 by Annie Hatley is licensed under a Public Domain<\/a> license<\/li>
- Map of New France about 1750 using modern political boundaries<\/a> © 2007 by Pinpin<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution ShareAlike)<\/a> license<\/li>
- Fort de Chartres turret<\/a> © 2004 by Kbh3rd<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution ShareAlike)<\/a> license<\/li><\/ul><\/div>
- Allan Greer, The People of New France<\/em> (Toronto: U of T Press, 2000), 105\u2013108. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Brett Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France<\/em> (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012), 222. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>definition<\/span>
In the context of European-Indigenous relations, the practice of renewing \u2014 annually or otherwise regularly \u2014 diplomatic relations and alliances by providing gifts to leadership figures. It includes the practice of \u201ccovering the dead,\u201d a round of gift-giving following wartime deaths of an ally\u2019s soldiers.<\/p>\n<\/div>
Key Takeaways<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n
- \r\n \t
- At its maximum size, New France was much more than Canada and Acadia.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Louisiana and the\u00a0Pays d'en Haut<\/em> were principally areas of French influence, rather than\u00a0settlement colonies.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Each of the regions of New France had distinctive economic and social characteristics and a degree of mutual autonomy.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
Long descriptions<\/h2>\r\n
Figure 4.17 long description<\/strong>: In 1750, France held modern-day Labrador, much of Quebec, southern Ontario, southern Manitoba, and a part of Saskatchewan. French territory also stretched south through the middle of the eastern United States all the way down to Louisiana and Mississippi at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico. Britain held the eastern coast of the United States from Maine to eastern Georgia and had recently acquired Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and parts of Northern Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba, along most of the shore of Hudson Bay. Spain held Florida, parts of the central United States from western Texas to Arizona and parts of Colorado and Utah, and Mexico. [Return to Figure 4.17]<\/a><\/p>","rendered":"
Figure 4.15 Vincenzo Coronelli’s 1688 map of the Pays d’en Haut.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n The Wendat Confederacy collapsed in 1649 following tragic defeats by both smallpox and the Haudenosaunee. The loss of their favoured middlemen in the fur trade, however, enabled French voyageurs to push beyond the boundaries of Wendake (Huronia) and into the upper Great Lakes. In 1659, Pierre-Esprit Radisson and M\u00e9dard Chouart des Groseilliers, who would go on to lead the British charge into Hudson Bay, were the first French traders to reach the western shore of Lake Superior. The 1670s and 1680s saw missionary and exploratory activity expand in the region \u2014 known as the\u00a0Pays d’en Haut. <\/em>Still searching for a route to the Pacific,\u00a0voyageurs were initially hopeful about the Mississippi system. They soon realized that they were to be disappointed. Nevertheless, in 1699 French territorial claims in North America expanded dramatically when Louisiana was founded in the basin of the Mississippi. Until 1713, the\u00a0French laid claim to\u00a0a trading network that extended from Plaisance through Acadia and Canada, as far north as Hudson Bay, all around\u00a0the Great Lakes\u00a0and down to the Gulf of Mexico. This network was maintained through a vast system of fortifications.<\/p>\n
Figure 4.16 The French established posts along the Mississippi like this one, Arkansas Post (c. 1689).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n Louisiana and the Ohio<\/h1>\n
Louisiana was the southernmost administrative district of New France and was under French control from 1682 to 1763 and 1800 to 1803. The first permanent settlement, Fort Maurepas, was founded in 1699 near the mouth of the Mississippi by Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, a French military officer from Canada. An inland trading post followed in 1714 in the territories of the Natchitoches, which served as an interface between French, Indigenous, and Spanish\/Mexican commercial interests in Texas. Soon cotton plantations began to appear. Louisiana originally covered a far-reaching territory that included most of the drainage basin of the Mississippi River and stretched from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and from the Appalachian Mountains to the Rocky Mountains. The relative success of the New France project rested in the ability of the French to hem in their competition and, in this respect, Lousiana and the Ohio were as integral to the success of Canada, as Canada was to that of the Pays d’en Haut<\/em> and the Mississippi. By means of careful diplomacy among the Indigenous nations of the Ohio Valley and the lands on either side of the Mississippi, the French were able to contain the British settlements to the east of the Appalachian Mountains until the mid-18th century. As well, they were able to exploit Indigenous dissatisfaction with British colonists even within the English colonies. This was the case in South Carolina in the early 1700s when Indigenous frustration with English trade partners and colonists made Louisiana an attractive alternative source of goods. In this way the French were able to work through third parties to hamper their English foes. The French pursued a virtually identical strategy in the south where they competed effectively against the Spanish. French rifles and other goods spread out across east Texas and as far west as New Mexico, undermining what loyalty and\/or deference the Spanish were able to command among their own Indigenous allies.<\/p>\n
The bridges between Louisiana and Canada were the Ohio and Illinois Valleys. Inaccessible to the French until the 1700s, the territory had changed hands between Indigenous groups during the period called the “Beaver Wars.” For reasons that go well beyond an interest in gaining dominance in the beaver-pelt trade, the Five Nations League expanded westward, raiding for personnel and subduing potentially dangerous neighbours. In the process, they drove off much of the indigenous population of the Ohio Valley, unintentionally making it more attractive to two groups: Indigenous peoples being squeezed out of the region east of Appalachia (across which British-American settlement was spilling) and Euro-North Americans who saw opportunities and dangers in a vacuum. French efforts were the most substantial once peace had been won with the Haudenosaunee.<\/p>\n
Figure 4.17 A map of New France, c. 1750. [Long Description]<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n By means of gift diplomacy<\/a> the French hoped to guarantee Indigenous support in the region and use it to keep the British out of the Ohio. From the Ottawa Valley south to Louisiana, New France had a small population. It relied heavily on friendly contacts with many and populous local Indigenous communities. The French settlers lacked the appetite for land that characterized English settlement. Also, they relied exclusively on Indigenous peoples to supply them with fur at trading posts. Low numbers of colonists, a limited military force of their own, and commercial dependence obliged the French to build a complex series of commercial, personal, and diplomatic connections. These enduring alliances between the French and the Indigenous communities were nurtured over decades and would have significant implications during the British-American invasion of the Ohio Valley.<\/p>\n
Figure 4.18 Fort de Chartres in what is now southwestern Illinois. The fort was originally built in 1720 and then rebuilt in stone in the 1750s. It fell into ruins and was restored as a heritage site in the 20th century. This turret gives a sense of the investment made by Canadien and Louisianan authorities.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n The South and West in New France<\/h1>\n
For historians of Canada, Louisiana is an opportunity to test certain assumptions. Individuals like d’Iberville connect the histories of the two regions, so they were not entirely isolates. News of practices in one could reach the other, while at the same time, distinctive and seemingly contradictory trends could be found. The seigneurial system never took root in Louisiana (nor was it applied to \u00cele Royale or with any rigour to Acadia); instead, individual land title was made available. Social relations were different as well. Colbert introduced the Code Noir<\/a> in 1685 to regulate slavery and establish racialized boundaries in the French sugar colonies; its tenets were subsequently transferred to Louisiana to support slavery in the cotton plantation economy after about 1717. Slavery was, to be sure, found in Canada although it was more likely to involve Indigenous slaves than Africans and more likely to be domestic in character than forced agricultural labour. But what is perhaps more noteworthy is that while interracial marriage and miscegnation occurred everywhere else in New France, in Louisiana’s plantation districts it was officially prohibited. Spread thinly everywhere but the St. Lawrence, Acadia, and New Orleans, the French coureur de bois<\/em> readily married into local Indigenous communities. This was, of course, a diplomatic strategy as well as a biological\/sentimental one: working in such small numbers, the French outside of the main population centres had to make an effort to be on good terms with their hosts. To turn this comparison on its head, why was slavery not the norm in Canada? The Canadien economy was simply not one that could benefit from or sustain an army of forced labour.<\/p>\n
In some respects there were peculiar similarities between the colonies. Where Canada and its hinterland had a trade in beaver pelts and moose hides, Louisiana’s chief export for many years was deer skins. The Choctaw nation was the main supplier, and they were as closely aligned with Louisiana as the Wendat had been with Canada. Another parallel was the rivalry between the Choctaw and the Chickasaw, the latter being allies and trading partners of the English in South Carolina. Both Indigenous groups found themselves trading their captive enemies to their respective European allies as slaves.[1]<\/sup><\/a> As the French discovered, to their chagrin, accepting a slave-gift from one allied nation meant that the slave’s nation of origin was ruled out as another ally. In this way, Indigenous slave exchanges purposefully set limits on whom the French could engage with diplomatically.[2]<\/sup><\/a> This was particularly the case in the Pays d’en Haut<\/em>.<\/p>\n
Distances between the colonies within New France were so great that each region enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy. Although New France as a whole was governed out of Quebec City and, later, Montreal, Louisiana was administered principally from Mobile, then Biloxi, and finally from New Orleans. Upper Louisiana extended into the Illinois territory and was a zone in which New Orleans’ authority competed with\u00a0Montreal’s. Throughout much of Louisiana and the Pays d’en Haut<\/em>, administrative control was more theoretical than practical; French settlers and farmers soon found themselves integrated less into a European system and more into an Indigenous world.<\/p>\n
\n\n Key Takeaways<\/p>\n<\/header>\n
\n- \n
- At its maximum size, New France was much more than Canada and Acadia.<\/li>\n
- Louisiana and the\u00a0Pays d’en Haut<\/em> were principally areas of French influence, rather than\u00a0settlement colonies.<\/li>\n
- Each of the regions of New France had distinctive economic and social characteristics and a degree of mutual autonomy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Long descriptions<\/h2>\n
Figure 4.17 long description<\/strong>: In 1750, France held modern-day Labrador, much of Quebec, southern Ontario, southern Manitoba, and a part of Saskatchewan. French territory also stretched south through the middle of the eastern United States all the way down to Louisiana and Mississippi at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico. Britain held the eastern coast of the United States from Maine to eastern Georgia and had recently acquired Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and parts of Northern Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba, along most of the shore of Hudson Bay. Spain held Florida, parts of the central United States from western Texas to Arizona and parts of Colorado and Utah, and Mexico. [Return to Figure 4.17]<\/a><\/p>\n
Media Attributions<\/h2>
- Partie occidentale du Canada<\/a> © 1688 by Vincenzo Coronelli is licensed under a Public Domain<\/a> license<\/li>
- Arkansas Post; 1689<\/a> © 1904 by Annie Hatley is licensed under a Public Domain<\/a> license<\/li>
- Map of New France about 1750 using modern political boundaries<\/a> © 2007 by Pinpin<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution ShareAlike)<\/a> license<\/li>
- Fort de Chartres turret<\/a> © 2004 by Kbh3rd<\/a> is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution ShareAlike)<\/a> license<\/li><\/ul><\/div>
- Allan Greer, The People of New France<\/em> (Toronto: U of T Press, 2000), 105\u2013108. ↵<\/a><\/li>
- Brett Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France<\/em> (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012), 222. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>
definition<\/span>In the context of European-Indigenous relations, the practice of renewing \u2014 annually or otherwise regularly \u2014 diplomatic relations and alliances by providing gifts to leadership figures. It includes the practice of \u201ccovering the dead,\u201d a round of gift-giving following wartime deaths of an ally\u2019s soldiers.<\/p>\n<\/div>
- Brett Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France<\/em> (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012), 222. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>
- Arkansas Post; 1689<\/a> © 1904 by Annie Hatley is licensed under a Public Domain<\/a> license<\/li>
- Each of the regions of New France had distinctive economic and social characteristics and a degree of mutual autonomy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
- Each of the regions of New France had distinctive economic and social characteristics and a degree of mutual autonomy.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
![Partie occidentale du Canada<\/a> © 1688 by Vincenzo Coronelli is licensed under a](\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Vincenzo_Coronelli_Partie_occidentale_du_Canada_1688.PNG\"){kind=link}
![Arkansas Post; 1689<\/a> © 1904 by Annie Hatley is licensed under a](\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:ArkansasPost1689.jpg\"){kind=link}
![Map of New France about 1750 using modern political boundaries<\/a> ©](\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Nouvelle-France_map-en.svg\"){kind=link}
![Fort de Chartres turret<\/a> ©](\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Ft_de_Chartres-bastion-1.jpg\"){kind=link}